It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How John Kasich Could Pick the Next President and the 130 Year Old Law That Makes It Possible

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
This election cycle has been contentious, full of emotion and strife at every turn. Talk of 3rd party voting, cross-party tickets, and the possibility of a contested convention if Trump doesn't gain the necessary 1273 delegates needed for GOP nomination have been discussed at length in political threads. Here's a new twist: in the event Ohio, a pivotal State, submits different Electoral Vote counts, and the count results in a split between House and Senate as to which count to accept(we all know how Congress agrees on things), the Governor of that State becomes the tiebreaker. I know the odds are slim this scenario could play out, but I can't come to grips with a 130 year old law that could be put in play if the above happened. As odd as it may sound, former GOP runner Kasich could pick the next President.
www.politico.com...


What Congress does have is that tangled 809-word statute passed in 1887 as part of the Electoral Count Act. The statute is intended to resolve disputes when a single state submits two different Electoral College vote counts—for instance, if there’s a contested county and its votes are enough to swing the state—and the Senate and House then split over which of the two counts to accept. With language so convoluted it was deemed “unintelligible” by the nation’s leading political scientist at the time of enactment, the law leaves debatable exactly what’s supposed to happen in this situation. Passed as a stopgap measure, it has never been replaced with a clearer or more executable plan. A key provision of the act says that if the House and Senate are split, the governor of the state in dispute becomes the tiebreaker. This provision, still with us, presents two problems. First is the possibility of a serious conflict of interest for the governor. For instance, in 2000, Florida Governor Jeb Bush might have been tasked with deciding the election that his brother George went on to win. (That eyebrow-raising scenario did not come to pass because the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore before the Electoral College meeting in Florida that year, so Florida sent only one set of Electoral College votes to Congress after Al Gore conceded defeat.) This year, if Ohio turns out to be the pivotal state, as is certainly plausible, Governor Kasich might be in a position to pick the winner single-handedly. This would be strange enough if he’s just a former contender in the race, and stranger still if he is the GOP’s presidential or vice-presidential candidate. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook



This possibility is slim, and even though the dominos would have to fall precisely, it boggles the mind that an Act created as a stop-gap measure as a result of circumstances in the 1884 Election of Tilden v Hayes could impact this election cycle. An Act this article terms as vague and "poorly written". Can you imagine the uproar if it came to this?

One hundred-thirty years later, that stopgap law still stands—which means that in 2016 we could find ourselves in a crisis not unlike in the Hayes-Tilden election. Electoral College votes might be contested in a crucial state, and the two chambers might be deadlocked. Or, even if the Supreme Court intervened and came to a non-tie decision, the candidate who loses at the court might refuse to concede, and the dispute would again fall to Congress, which might well split over how to count the state. We all would be at the mercy of the 1887 Electoral Count Act again—and then what happens? How would the governor of the state in question decide? Would Congress affirm that governor’s verdict, or might hardliners in either party put up a fight? If he were challenged by hardliners in his own party, would Speaker Paul Ryan override their demands? Would we really want to put Ryan—and the nation—to this test? Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


Again, this situation has a low probability of occurring, but with this election cycle's weird meter pegged on high, nothing would surprise me. I do believe it's in everyone's best interest to clean up the mess of the 1887 Electoral Count Act, and leave as little as possible to suspicious outcomes. The article ends with this paragraph, which sums up things nicely:

The odds of the Kasich-as-decider scenario might be low, but the point is that it could happen. Prudence dictates taking no chances and using the remaining months before November to adopt an actually workable Electoral Count Act. This year’s presidential election already has been unpredictable in so many ways, and we still have a long way to go. Who’s to say 2016 won’t be another 1876? Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook[/ex

www.politico.com...







edit on 9242016242016-03-20T16:11:24-05:0020160pm240411 by Boscowashisnamo because: none given.

edit on 9452016572016-03-20T16:40:57-05:0020160pm570440 by Boscowashisnamo because: wording.




posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Katschits chances are about to slim here soon, Trump has Cali by large, Trump will win Az tomorrow by large and I think he is at 64% in Utah thanks to Romney
Im not saying he cant but I believe Trump will have the delegates , there will be no convention and the delegates will be bound, thanks to Romney again HAHAHA. There are plenty of delegates for Trump to achieve the 1237, that's just my opinion. I also think most delegates are Trump supporters anyway, judging by the vote count it would seem so. Also, Hillary would burn and I mean burn Kasich in a debate and he could never beat her, the head to head polls show from history that they aren't accurate at this point with so many people involved.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

This would go in the History books of presidential wins.

Love witnessing History, and hope it happens just for the sake of an upset.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Go back even further to 1871 when the US went bankrupt and became a corporation.
Which US government does your law pertain to?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

The chances of this actually happening is somewhere between slim and none. But it is odd to be sure, and as crazy as this election has been, I wouldn't completely count this scenario out.

I still hold out for the possibility Kasich will be the nominee after several ballots at the convention in July.



new topics

top topics
 
8

log in

join